An overwrought and all too long battle scene in Zion that was just too dependent on mediocre and repetative special effects for one.

That and the story line -especially compared to the other two - seemed fragmented and lame. It had the feel as though they were on a deadline to get it released 6 months after the last one. Not sure what compelled them to do it this way but it certainly was less than cohesive as far as plot goes.

I guess I should have known something was wrong when the third one failed to open with a spectacular ass-kicking scene.

bah. the first one was novel in its mixing of special effects with foofy cyberpunk and hong kong action. (as a sci fi movie, it's on par with terminator and independence day - good rah rah stuff, but not a lot of meat). the others tried to build that into something more. it's not unlike the problems harry harrison got into with his early trilogies.

obBM: it's one thing to have a novel idea. it's entirely another to try to franchise it by making it biggershinierbetterlouderfaster.

As Neo and Mr. Smith hammered each other, I kept thinking that it's pretty sad if the only thing hugely intelligent beings could find to do with their time is engage in total warfare and dominance battles, kind of like chimpanzee war on steroids.

The whole fascination of the original movie's examination of what is real is totally lost and distorted in number three. Who cares if imaginary programs slug it out mentally? Zion, the Matrix and the machine city have all lost their believability.

Good sci-fi always leaves that edge of 'it could be real'. By number three, the only thing left is the eye candy.

III wrote:. (as a sci fi movie, it's on par with terminator and independence day - good rah rah stuff, but not a lot of meat).

Trey, I can't believe you think Independence Day is worthy of any merit whatsoever. Terminator, maybe, but i don't think that movie had anywhere near the impact on the culture that the stylism of the Matrix has had.

I think of the Terminator as a classic sci-fi, more or less an updated 50's B sci-fi movie. What really shook the rafters was its total abandonment to the idea of killer robots on the loose. It was scary, but instantly dated.

The Matrix still rattles the mind with its weird mix of intrigue. The subsequent movies just lost it entirely. Great visuals with confusing narrative.

Independence Day in that class?....don't make me gag! What a lame movie. Upload the virus, chuck, those durn Aliens never seen what a Powerbook can do!!!

ramen wrote:There's a depth of visual filmography that's worth the trip regardless of the sterility of the narrative.

I think Gene Siskel just walked over my grave!

When Naobi flipped that ship around in the mechanical tube, that was a rush. When those giant drillers pierce the city's walls and fall to the floor of the cavern, that's fucking cinema. Too bad they couldn't hold the whole picture together, but I definitely got my rocks off at times watching it.

Gene always used to get walked on by Ebert. He was always the pissed-off guy playing to Ebert's buddha-like impassiveness.

III wrote:>Upload the virus, chuck, those durn Aliens never seen what a Powerbook can do!!!

and using human beings as a power source isn't completely silly? (we waste power, we don't genereate it. that's why we need to eat.)

yeah, i put all three films in the same category of pretty low brow, cotton candy science fiction.

Yes, that was a completely ridiculous plot point. Now if they were using those human brains to generate the Matrix, or as some kind of gigantic parallel computer, that would be cool. At least it might be a little believable.

I kind of liked the first Matrix. The overall "feel" to the movie was very gothic/cyberpunk. Could have dumped Keanu and tried not to philosophize everything to fit a shaky plot. I felt the whole "human power" thing was kind of silly too. But my favorite SF writers are Niven, Herbert, Heinlien, and Asimov. They tend to get into their futuristic creations in more detail, with more scientific background, in order to make it more believable.

That being said, I got a chance to view the new Matrix on a company offsite yesterday. It was worse than the last one, which was worse than the first one. I got the distinct feeling that the re-animated dead body of L. Ron Hubbard sat next to the screenplay writers and whispered "Quick, pull this one out your ass!" whenever they hit a point in the plot where they couldn't quite find something to fit. Something doesn't make sense? Arrange some dialog or a fight scene that makes less sense. Baffle em' with bullshit when logic fails.

I kept waiting for Darth Vader to pop up and tell Keanu "I'm your father." Then everything would have made sense.

I can't believe 'Independence Day' rates on anyone's scale here. As a pretty die hard sci-fi fan I found it to be the greatest disappointment ever for a movie I'd anticipated for sometime.

I give it a two (out of ten). Judd Hirsh as the kevetching, neurotic, jew-daddy was particularly annoying and stereotypical to the point of nausea. The only reason I give it a '2' is because Randy Quaid as the bumbling, absent father alcoholic, dumb ass died a somewhat violent death at the hands of the aliens. Hell, maybe they weren't so bad afterall. If he hadn't of died I'd have given it a '1.' If his plane had been modified with a two person cockpit to load Hirsh's lame ass in so that both of them could have died together I might have given it a '3.'

I think the third movie was a hell of a lot of fun, and only slightly less good than the first. The second one was a piece of shit. I think that the only thing that makes people like the first one so much better is that they hadn't seen any of this shit before when that one came out.

Looking for wooden dialogue and bad delivery? Watch the first one.

Morpheus: "Reality? What...Is...Reality?" I love Laurence Fishburne, but seriously, he's turning into the black William Shatner.

The first one is also full of ridiculous plot points and shaky philosophy, just like the third. The challenge of the third is that they had to answer all the questions that had been asked in the first. It's easy to seem smart and deep when you're just asking open-ended questions. Answering them is much trickier, and honestly, I felt satisfied with the answers. *SPOILER AHEAD*

Neo is the One. His destiny was to end the war by making a deal with the machines to eliminate Smith before he, a program imprinted with Neo's powers, eliminated them. But destiny was not enough--he had to choose to do it, and choose to believe. That choice is what the Architect could not account for in all his planning.

As for how he is able to mentally destroy the machines in the "real" world, well, I guess that's why he's the One. It's not explained. But then, it isn't explained why he his mental abilities make him immeasurably faster than all other humans (and even programs) in the Matrix. He just is, because he's special. He's the One. Same deal. It's a little more far-fetched, but no more so than, say, telekenesis.

Let me conclude by saying that the whole sequence of the machines assault on the dock was KICK-FUCKING-ASS!

Ahem. Let the shitstorm rain down.

It's not that I hate you. It's just that I'm a much better person than you.

III wrote:>yeah, i put all three films in the same category of pretty low brow, cotton candy science fiction.

I think that was the problem with the second one and presumably the third one. Critics and paid thinkers ascribed to the first one a series of mythologies that made it easier to get the public thinking deep thoughts. And the studio executives ate it up, and tried to feed more of that. I guess if it's a way to spark discussions among people who otherwise wouldn't be interested, that can be a good thing. At least the Matrix shot a little higher then most kick-their-ass movies.

The thing I most enjoyed in the second one was the fact that I recognized the freeways as part of my local network of highways, and it was cool to see them re-cast in a weird-ass battle movie.

III's mention of metropolis was a great one - that was a film and a half.